The interface is really disconnected, inconsistent, and almost has an
amateur quality to it. (not the good kind) It not only boggles my
mind they they would release something so disconnected, but that so
many people are so excited for it. If anything this will be a great
study in what not to do especially in the mobile interface design
world. I believe people are hitting a good level of interface
sophistication and they will not put up with something that is not
well-designed, natural, and consistent.

The iPhone horn doesn't need any more tooting, but this really
reflects how great the apple team is with UI development and how bad
others are.

I think my read on the lack of conversation on G1 here is that I
don't know a single soul who bought it or cared about it. It is a
non-issue in this community. I think the only people talking about it
are developers, and even then I'm not hearing a heck of a lot about
it.

>From HTC's ugly retro Palm Pilot design to Android's forced,rushed, OS GUI. At best it gets a shrug from me.

> The interface is really disconnected, inconsistent, and almost has an> amateur quality to it. (not the good kind) It not only boggles my> mind they they would release something so disconnected, but that so> many people are so excited for it. If anything this will be a great> study in what not to do especially in the mobile interface design> world. I believe people are hitting a good level of interface> sophistication and they will not put up with something that is not> well-designed, natural, and consistent.

Going out on a limb and upsetting some people I may know here in good
old Silicon Valley off...

What part of Google's current product offerings would lead you to
believe there's systemic consistency, cross-product cohesion and
anything but an amateurish aesthetic quality to it, especially with
regard to a comparison to Apple?

> I have been saying that Google is an "non-design" organization for> years. Thanx Andrei!!! 8-)>> G-d Damn It!!!! we agree again! Is this becoming a habit?

We won't truly agree on much of the larger picture until you change
your stance that "interaction" designers need not understand fully the
fundamentals of graphic design as part of the job description. That
means the fundamentals of good typography, color theory and
application, composition, the grid, layout, etc. I'll let you off the
hook in bringing up basic markup and scripting skills for now.

As much I think Google's products are functionally useful but still
pretty poorly designed overall using my definition of what constitutes
interface design (which I've said for many years now, so that
shouldn't be a surprise), it's hard to argue that the engineers at
many technology and software companies like Google should hand over
the accountability of the design of their products if those around
them that call themselves designers use Visio as their primary drawing
tool and can't build decent prototypes that involve more than
scissors, glue and a lot of hand waving.

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:22 PM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:
> I think my read on the lack of conversation on G1 here is that I> don't know a single soul who bought it or cared about it. It is a> non-issue in this community. I think the only people talking about it> are developers, and even then I'm not hearing a heck of a lot about> it.

> On Sep 24, 2008, at 5:36 PM, David Malouf wrote:>>> I have been saying that Google is an "non-design" organization for>> years. Thanx Andrei!!! 8-)>>>> G-d Damn It!!!! we agree again! Is this becoming a habit?>> We won't truly agree on much of the larger picture until you change> your stance that "interaction" designers need not understand fully> the fundamentals of graphic design as part of the job description.> That means the fundamentals of good typography, color theory and> application, composition, the grid, layout, etc. I'll let you off> the hook in bringing up basic markup and scripting skills for now.>> As much I think Google's products are functionally useful but still> pretty poorly designed overall using my definition of what> constitutes interface design (which I've said for many years now, so> that shouldn't be a surprise), it's hard to argue that the engineers> at many technology and software companies like Google should hand> over the accountability of the design of their products if those> around them that call themselves designers use Visio as their> primary drawing tool and can't build decent prototypes that involve> more than scissors, glue and a lot of hand waving.>> I am, if anything, an equal opportunity curmudgeon.>> --> Andrei Herasimchuk>> Principal, Involution Studios> innovating the digital world>> e. andrei at involutionstudios.com> c. +1 408 306 6422> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

24 Sep 2008 - 10:41pm

subimage interactive

2004

> The iPhone horn doesn't need any more tooting, but this really> reflects how great the apple team is with UI development and how bad> others are.>> What does everyone else think?

No comments on the Android platform UI, but what I've seen I've liked.

Physically, I find the iPhone lacking because of the lack of a
keyboard. I find using a touchscreen for typing lacking.

Having moved our company email to Google Apps, I am excited at the
prospect of having a phone that can connect seamlessly to my
contacts, email, chat and calendar. The stuff around the platform
should improve with different handset manufacturers jumping on board
and integrating it with different aspects of the hardware (this
appears to be a sell point for Android)

One feature I like is how the UI adjusts itself based on angle of the
phone to give a direction in street view using Google maps.

Also be interesting to see how mobile search plays out on the
Android.

Expect performance, battery life and stability will be important
factors as well.

> The interface is really disconnected, inconsistent, and almost has an> amateur quality to it.

G1 is a revolution: open source OS, a free-for-all for developers, diverse
devices to run on...Oops, we had that revolution already on the desktop. For
consumers, how did that turn out?

Its manufacturer HTC called G1 "The most exciting phone in the history of
phones."

I compiled a list of a bunch of software, hardware and service flaws in G1
and asked the question, "Would Apple have been utterly crucified and AAPL
have tanked if the iPhone came out with so many shortcomings?" in:

The integration of all these features on the iPhone into a fluid UI is
apparently of not much concern to G1 promoters. It's after all "open." It's
more important to be able to write tethering or VoIP apps that carriers
won't allow on the device than raise the level of UI coherency. If Google
can't bring even a semblance of UI coherency to its own products (45% of
which are apparently still in "beta") then what can be expected for an OS
that's supposed to run on any device from $10 "phones" to multi-touch
handheld computers?

Haven't we seen that movie before? One codebase trying to cater to myriad
hardware "partners" at every iteration and, in the process, getting bloated
and chained down with legacy considerations beyond redemption?

Yep, "write once, run on every mobile device," that's the ticket!

Any developer who thinks this is fun ought to get on a plane and go talk to
Microsoft, which I'm sure would have a few morsels of advice by now on
hardware-software-service separation.

"What part of Google's current product offerings would lead you to
believe there's systemic consistency, cross-product cohesion and
anything but an amateurish aesthetic quality to it, especially with
regard to a comparison to Apple?

Yes there is basically no cross-product cohesion in the google world,
but with G1 it seems to lack even internal cohesion. I by no means
was ever expecting anything amazing from the idesign standpoint, but I
was hoping for some improvement as they definitely have the money to
dedicate a solid team to build something that could be on par with
other offerings.

Again, I think it's a great case study of what not to do.

.pete

25 Sep 2008 - 2:58am

tamlyn

2008

In my experience it is only graphic designers who think that Google
products are poorly designed. Everyone else just marvels at how easy
they are to use and gets on with it. I'd argue that Google products
are, in the main, exceptionally well designed from an interaction
point of view.

Take the original Google homepage. They were the first to realise that
the only thing people want on a search engine homepage is a search
box. Or what about Google checkout, Gmail, or even Google Chrome which
has some really neat interactions not seen anywhere else.

Google has excellent attention to detail but only the details that
matter to most of their userbase. In the end, does it really matter if
the buttons in Google Docs are a different shade to those in Gmail?

Tamlyn.

25 Sep 2008 - 5:08am

Will Callaghan

2008

I find some Google Apps more intuitive than others. GMail isn't
pretty but it's generally sound, aspects of Analytics and Street
View I find appealing too.

Perhaps what Google needs is an overarching god on the throne like
Jobs is reputed to be at Apple. You're sure to have read this Wired
article on the subject
(http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/magazine/16-04/bz_apple) but maybe
autocracy is one way forward? It would have certainly helped with
some of the projects I've worked on!

> On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 2:22 PM, David Malouf <dave at ixda.org> wrote:> > I think my read on the lack of conversation on G1 here is that I> > don't know a single soul who bought it or cared about it. It is a> > non-issue in this community. I think the only people talking about it> > are developers, and even then I'm not hearing a heck of a lot about> > it.>> It's not even out yet. How would someone purchase it?>> --------------------> seth - subimage llc> ----->http://sublog.subimage.com> -----> Cashboard - Estimates, invoices, and time tracking software - for free!>http://www.getcashboard.com> -----> Substruct - Open source RoR e-commerce software.>http://code.google.com/p/substruct/>

There is a huge and deep relationship between the need for interface
work and how well you technology works on the back end. Part of the
elegance and simplicity of Songza was due to how well google
performed. The interface designer's job is very often making a crappy
technology more tolerable. It holds true that your interface would be
better if there was less of it, but the technology behind it still
has to render results.

Google's stuff seems to work. And, for the most part, they keep
things very simple on the front end. That makes the interface needs
pretty minimal.

All that being said... I really struggle with gmail. I find the
structure counter intuitive... and find myself having to double and
triple checking the string and who I am sending/forwarding/responding
to.

Mark

On Sep 25, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Tamlyn Rhodes wrote:

> In my experience it is only graphic designers who think that Google> products are poorly designed. Everyone else just marvels at how easy> they are to use and gets on with it. I'd argue that Google products> are, in the main, exceptionally well designed from an interaction> point of view.>> Take the original Google homepage. They were the first to realise that> the only thing people want on a search engine homepage is a search> box. Or what about Google checkout, Gmail, or even Google Chrome which> has some really neat interactions not seen anywhere else.>> Google has excellent attention to detail but only the details that> matter to most of their userbase. In the end, does it really matter if> the buttons in Google Docs are a different shade to those in Gmail?>> Tamlyn.> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help

25 Sep 2008 - 10:03am

Andrei Herasimchuk

2004

On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:58 AM, Tamlyn Rhodes wrote:

> In my experience it is only graphic designers who think that Google> products are poorly designed. Everyone else just marvels at how easy> they are to use and gets on with it. I'd argue that Google products> are, in the main, exceptionally well designed from an interaction> point of view.

If you mean Maps and Search, I'd agree everything. Everything else?
People will tolerate a LOT when its cheap or free. Pure and simple.
Don't confuse what people put up with as a measure of what constitutes
something that is well designed.

> Google has excellent attention to detail but only the details that> matter to most of their userbase. In the end, does it really matter if> the buttons in Google Docs are a different shade to those in Gmail?

You missed the larger point. It's not just about aesthetics, but
that's the most obvious problem point Google has.

I encourage you to take a look at the entire breadth of the Google
product offering and show me exactly where they are all well designed.
They have over 50 products available now.. In fact... can you even
find them?

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:03 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk
<aherasimchuk at involutionstudios.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2008, at 1:58 AM, Tamlyn Rhodes wrote:>>> In my experience it is only graphic designers who think that Google>> products are poorly designed. Everyone else just marvels at how easy>> they are to use and gets on with it. I'd argue that Google products>> are, in the main, exceptionally well designed from an interaction>> point of view.>> If you mean Maps and Search, I'd agree everything. Everything else? People> will tolerate a LOT when its cheap or free. Pure and simple. Don't confuse> what people put up with as a measure of what constitutes something that is> well designed.Besides these, Picasa is quit good designed
>>> Google has excellent attention to detail but only the details that>> matter to most of their userbase. In the end, does it really matter if>> the buttons in Google Docs are a different shade to those in Gmail?>> You missed the larger point. It's not just about aesthetics, but that's the> most obvious problem point Google has.>> I encourage you to take a look at the entire breadth of the Google product> offering and show me exactly where they are all well designed. They have> over 50 products available now.. In fact... can you even find them?>Picasa, GMail, Google Reader ... , all get high rank from their user.

Frankly speaking, most of the Google products is from outside except
their search engine. Some bought product but be redesigned by google,
Youtube ( redesigned, and it's not a bad redesign ), Picasa
(redesigned, make it as a integrated part of Google services. It's
really a smart design to connect it to Google's map service).
Google Doc, yes, it's simple and stupid, but many people use it for
everyday life ( especially for cross computer work ), etc.
I'm not a Google Fans, but should say they do quite good work on SOME
of products they bought ( or from their own).

If designer is not from Google, but the design will result on the
Google products, it's Google's design or not ? Who can tells? but at
least, they aware of the importance of design for product development,
and make it works very well on some product lines.

Cheers,
-- Jarod

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:19 AM, Andrei Herasimchuk
<aherasimchuk at involutionstudios.com> wrote:
> On Sep 25, 2008, at 9:13 AM, Jarod Tang wrote:>>> Besides these, Picasa is quit good designed>> Picasa was designed by an ex-Metacreations team and then bought by Google.>>> Picasa, GMail, Google Reader ... , all get high rank from their user.>> Ok... three out of fifty. One of which was originally designed outside the> Google bubble. Not good metrics by any measure.>> --> Andrei Herasimchuk>> Principal, Involution Studios> innovating the digital world>> e. andrei at involutionstudios.com> c. +1 408 306 6422> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help>

One often overlooked element of Google's success is performance.
Performance for cloud based systems is crucial. You can have the best
design in the world and it will get trumped every time by performance.
Latency is at this moment the most important issue in the experience
of cloud based systems and google knows this.

Ixd as a pure pursuit does not live in a vacuum absent of the
technologies that exist to support good experience. I say this not to
let Google of the hook re the quality of experience they deliver but
to appreciate that they treat performance seriously. I prefer yahoo
mail to gmail from a design pov but I use gmail because it's way
faster.

My guess is that android based phones over time will be about
performance first, not withstanding their first partner T-mobile's
weak 3g network.

It's still part of the user experience.
I would like to say what you addressed still belongs to bad design vs
good design discussion.

Cheers,
-- Jarod

On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 1:58 PM, greg <greg.petroff at sap.com> wrote:
> One often overlooked element of Google's success is performance.> Performance for cloud based systems is crucial. You can have the best> design in the world and it will get trumped every time by performance.> Latency is at this moment the most important issue in the experience> of cloud based systems and google knows this.>> Ixd as a pure pursuit does not live in a vacuum absent of the> technologies that exist to support good experience. I say this not to> let Google of the hook re the quality of experience they deliver but> to appreciate that they treat performance seriously. I prefer yahoo> mail to gmail from a design pov but I use gmail because it's way> faster.>> My guess is that android based phones over time will be about> performance first, not withstanding their first partner T-mobile's> weak 3g network.>>>>> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .> Posted from the new ixda.org>http://www.ixda.org/discuss?post=33456>>> ________________________________________________________________> Welcome to the Interaction Design Association (IxDA)!> To post to this list ....... discuss at ixda.org> Unsubscribe ................ http://www.ixda.org/unsubscribe> List Guidelines ............ http://www.ixda.org/guidelines> List Help .................. http://www.ixda.org/help>

I agree totally, and this is the point I was trying to make. I would
even add the impact of the business model into the total experience
of a product and the cost to the environment.

Good design finds the sweet spot between the tech, the biz model and
the experience that delights and meets the needs of real people. Even
better it considers the environmental impact as well. There are a lot
of entry points into that ven diagram. Google is coming in from the
tech side, apple from the human pov but they are both trying to get
into the zone.

Remember, Google's declared mission is to have Android run on all kinds of
mobile devices, even beyond cell phones. Apple developers know what the
operational variables they have to deal with are, Android developers have
little idea. We could easily be back to the era of Windows supporting 3,968
sound cards 1,876 video boards and 4,423 print drivers, million legacy
codebases, bugs, etc. That's the price you pay for ubiquity, a la Vista.

So Google perhaps can control #1, #2 and #4, but beyond that they are at the
mercy of "partners." Good luck with that UX approach.